JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Advice on pursuing peace with Syria

By Uriel Heilman · November 26, 2008

Aaron David Miller and Itamar Rabinovich offer advice on how—and why—to pursue peace with Syria.

1 Comment | Share This | Israel, syria

Mideast roundup

By Uriel Heilman · September 11, 2008

• Ha’aretz has some details on some of the weapons it says the U.S. government denied Israel out of fear they’d be used to attack Iran. They include bunker-buster bombs, permission to use an air corridor over Iraq to fly to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes, the report said.
• Gabriela Shalev, who this week officially began her job as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, came out swinging in her first public statement on the job. Responding to an Iranian protest of remarks by Israeli ministers that Israel could kidnap Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Shalev said: “It is absurd that Iran preaches morality to Israel,” and more.
• Following a boat trip to Gaza that thwarted Israel’s blockade of the strip and resulted in his arrest by Israeli authorities, the director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Jeff Halper, faces a major funding crisis. The European Union, which provided much of the funding for the controversial organization (which blames Israeli Jews for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), is not renewing its grant to the group, NGO Monitor reports.
• Former Israeli national security adviser Giora Eiland is troubled about Israeli-Syrian negotiations. In a piece in Ynet, he writes: “The three most bothersome issues are as follows: The order of our actions, the absence of a genuine security assessment, and the disregard shown to the United States.”

0 Comments | Share This | Bush, Iran, Israel, syria

Syria’s true face?

By Uriel Heilman · September 5, 2008

Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post have dueling editorials today on Israeli-Syrian peace talks.

Both note the more conciliatory, peace-oriented tone in President Bashar Assad’s latest pronouncements, made during a visit to Damascus by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. But while Ha’aretz sees in them signs of genuine, new approach by Assad, and finds that obstacles to peace lie in Israel, the Post’s editors are more skeptical about Syria’s true intentions.

Here’s what Ha’aretz sees:

The dialogue with Syria has opened a serious new window of opportunity. Assad claims to have presented a number of practical proposals for continuing negotiations, and has announced that he would like to hold direct talks after the U.S. elections. By this he is openly exhibiting his expectations that the Americans will be partners. No less important is the businesslike tone of his comments about Syrian contacts with Israel. It is encouraging that in addition to the French president, the ruler of Qatar and the prime minister of Turkey - the country that has hosted the indirect talks - have highlighted the negotiations with Israel in their talks in Damascus…

In the meantime, it seems that if there is an obstacle to the talks, it comes from the Israeli side. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who initiated the dialogue, is about to end his tenure, so the status of the person responsible for the negotiations is unclear. This situation has already broken the talks’ continuity. Every effort must be taken to ensure that this break will be short, because it is vital that the meetings keep their momentum.

And here’s what the Post sees:

We can’t help but ponder why Assad’s rhetoric veers so unsteadily between belligerence and conciliation.

Israel must be clear-eyed, first of all, on the nature of the Syrian regime, which happens to be engaged in brisk military build-up and procurement…

Damascus is also a long-standing state sponsor of terrorism, hosting Hamas and other extremist Palestinian organizations. It has not only shipped Iranian weapons to Hizbullah but also supplied it with Russian-made military equipment such as the Kornet anti-tank missile and its own 220mm anti-personnel rockets. Syria has also played a key role as the source of foreign fighters and insurgents infiltrating Iraq.

Although a Kuwaiti newspaper reported this week that Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal had left Damascus for Sudan because of Syria’s interest in moving along the diplomatic talks with Israel, Jerusalem officials have challenged the claim.

If Assad is making conciliatory sounds now, therefore, perhaps it’s not because he has abandoned a belligerent posture, but because it serves his interests and deflects pressure. This, indeed, is a long-established pattern.

Both, however, add caveats at the end. Here’s the Post’s:

Then again, he may be sincere. If so, he should come to Jerusalem, or invite our premier to Damascus, and lay out his peace vision.

And here’s Ha’aretz’s:

Of course, the concerns and suspicions raised by the opponents of dialogue with Syria should not be ignored. Most importantly, it is important to evaluate the price Israel will have to pay for an agreement with Syria. But there will be time for this when the direct negotiations begin and the Israeli public, which recognizes that Israel will have to withdraw from the Golan Heights, learns what it will get in return.

2 Comments | Share This | Israel, syria

Why the U.S. should support Israel-Syria talks

By Uriel Heilman · July 29, 2008

With the Bush administration seemingly reticent to wholeheartedly endorse Israel-Syria peace talks, the Israel Policy Forum offers a paper – crafted by former U.S. ambassadors to Middle East countries, among others – focusing on what the United States stands to gain from Israeli-Syrian détente.

The importance of bringing America into the talks is no small thing, the authors write. Only the U.S. can offer Syria the incentives and western embrace it requires to drop its position within Iran’s sphere of influence – just as only the U.S. could offer Egypt an alternative for Soviet backing at the time of the Israel-Egypt peace accord.

The authors write:

By setting aside the diplomatic “tool box,” however, the Bush administration seems to be signaling a preference for defeat over dialogue when it comes to the prospect of engaging the regime of President Assad.

As a practical matter, therefore, the question of what to do about Israeli-Syrian peace talks may well fall squarely on whoever occupies the Oval Office on the afternoon of January 20, 2009. We think the following factors are worth considering:

* As Iraq shows signs of gradually stabilizing, American-Syrian talks might yield agreements producing substantial benefits for the government in Baghdad while helping to relieve Syria of the enormous Iraqi refugee burden it is carrying.

* If there is a degree of genuineness in this Turkish-Syrian-Israeli initiative, the parties can conduct their respective “due diligence” processes and tackle some technical negotiating details without American assistance between now and early 2009. While we would like to see the Bush administration convert an apparent demand for American facilitation services into a gain for U.S. foreign policy objectives, we suspect the president prefers a different course.

* Contrary to the apparent beliefs of the Assad regime, a new American president—Republican or Democrat—will not automatically sign up to the proposition that the United States should dive into Israeli-Syrian talks forthwith and approach the bilateral relationship with Damascus with a blank slate. Iraq and Lebanon will be inherited issues. If Syria wants a positive relationship with Washington, cooperation over Iraq and an accommodation over Lebanon are essential. The new administration would do well to define what it wants, when it wants it, and what it is prepared to give in return. In short, tough-minded and disciplined diplomacy should come back into vogue—it is a tool of American power that no American commander-in-chief should be reluctant to use.

* If Damascus proves unwilling to be helpful with Iraq and determined to restore its suzerainty over Lebanon, it will be difficult for any American administration to obtain the requisite domestic political support to play an active role in helping Syria, through facilitation and mediation, recover the lands it lost to Israel in 1967.

* The dilemma for which Damascus holds an important key is that notwithstanding its bad relationship with Washington, a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace is essential to American national security interests. As the United States tries to rebuild its image, influence, and prestige in the Arab and Muslim worlds, the quality of its efforts to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors will be of transcendent importance. While no American need ever apologize for the special relationship between the United States and Israel and while no one need ever doubt the depth and permanency of America’s commitment to Israel’s security, it is important that the United States be seen as striving for peace and justice in the Arab-Israeli context. Without sacrificing any legitimate national security interest, Syria—if it wants a good relationship with Washington and if it wants a vital American role in its discussions with Israel—can help make it possible for the next president (and even this one) to pursue a peace whose achievement would disappoint only Osama bin Laden, his disciples, like-minded extremists, and Iran.

Therefore, success of the Turkey mediated Israeli-Syrian talks would promote vital US interests in the region.  If the current US administration is not prepared to facilitate and join them, we urge the next president to do so as soon as possible after he takes office.

0 Comments | Share This | Arab-Israeli Conflict, Bush, Israel, syria

Syria’s peace dividends

By Uriel Heilman · July 29, 2008

Mired in economic woe, Syrians see economic benefits to pursuing peace with Israel, The New York Times reports:

Mr. Zayat, a 35-year-old television cinematographer, says he views a peace deal with Israel as necessary and inevitable — not just for political reasons, but because Syria’s vulnerable economy needs all the help it can get.

“We are tired, the country is suffocating,” he said, as he played backgammon with a friend at a cafe here, the sweet smell of apple-flavored tobacco drifting around him. “We have suffered a long time from the political boycott and the sanctions.”

That sentiment is echoed by many others. Prices soared here after the Syrian government cut fuel subsidies in May, deepening the gulf between rich and poor in this nominally socialist state. It had little choice. The oil reserves Syria has relied on for so long are rapidly disappearing. The hefty budget surpluses of a decade ago have turned into multibillion-dollar deficits. A country that could once afford to be serenely indifferent to Western sanctions is now being forced to liberalize and open its economy.

None of this has changed Syria’s conviction that any peace agreement must include the return of the Golan Heights, the area captured by Israel in 1967. But a profoundly uncertain economic future has created additional incentives for peace, which could help lure foreign investment by ending Syria’s pariah status in the West.

A settlement with Israel “would lift a huge weight from our shoulders,” said Ghimar Deeb, a Syrian lawyer and economist who works with the United Nations here. It would lead to the lifting of sanctions, which would give Syria access to new investment, high-tech supplies and training opportunities, he said.

“Poverty is increasing, inequality is increasing, and I believe the street is frustrated,” Mr. Deeb said. “They need peace with all our neighbors.”

Meanwhile, senior Israeli officials told Ha’aretz that Syria is taking its talks with Israel seriously:

Senior officials in Jerusalem confirmed Monday that Syria has carried out a number of measures in recent weeks that reflect that it is taking talks with Israel seriously.

The sources refused to say whether they were referring to such measures as lowering the alert levels of the Syrian army or stemming the flow of arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon through its territory, but they did say that the effects of the measures were “tangible.”

0 Comments | Share This | syria

Syria’s ambassador speaks to Peace Now

By Uriel Heilman · July 28, 2008

Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, talks with Americans for Peace Now about what Israel needs to do to achieve peace with Syria, and why U.S. guarantees are essential.

“We want to improve relations with the West, regardless of what happens between us and the Israelis,” Moustapha said.

0 Comments | Share This | Israel, syria

The anti-Bush world view

By Ami Eden · July 14, 2008

The New York Times has three opinions pieces today calling for a reversal in various elements of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy.

1) Barack Obama reaffirms his commitment to pulling out U.S troops from Iraq:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

2) James Rubin argues that the United States should open a diplomatic post in Iran:

America has not sent diplomats to Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis. Washington’s interests are managed by the Swiss government in Tehran. But as in other hostile countries, like Cuba, Washington could set up an interests section in Tehran even while formal diplomatic relations are suspended. Housed in the Swiss Embassy, this post would process visa requests and handle other consular matters.

Such an outpost should not be seen as or used for an intelligence operation. Rather, it would give American diplomats an opportunity to observe the country’s complex politics firsthand. There are no current American foreign service officers who have ever been posted there. Setting up an interests section should help ensure that American policy is not born of ignorance.

3) Roger Cohen explores (online) the Scandinavian view that the Unite States and the West have made a big mistake by shunning engagement with enemies and failing to keep channels open to Hamas and Syria:

Norway’s message to the United States is blunt: the next administration, whether headed by Barack Obama or John McCain, should pronounce the war on terror over. Because it has tended to isolate the United States, polarize the world, inflate the enemy, conflate diverse movements and limit scope for dialogue, its time has passed.

0 Comments | Share This | International, Iran, Iraq, Israel, syria

The third grade

By Uriel Heilman · July 14, 2008

It’s difficult to decide if the efforts Syrian President Bashar Assad made to avoid a face-to-face meeting with the Israeli prime minister on Sunday are more reminiscent of the third grade, or of a guy steering clear of his ex at a party. In any case, at the Union for the Mediterranean summit in Paris the dictator from Damascus managed to spend a whole day near, but not with, Ehud Olmert.

Assad slipped out of the room when Olmert got up to speak. When Olmert made the rounds shaking hands, Assad turned around to talk to his interpreter. And at the Bastille Day parade, Olmert managed to get within a few feet of Assad, but there was no eye contact.

“We are not seeking symbols,” Assad told French TV.

I guess flowers and chocolate wouldn’t have been enough.

Ha’aretz shows in pictures how it all went down.

2 Comments | Share This | Arab-Israeli Conflict, Israel, syria